D&D General Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?

[Lanefan]

That is part of why I am motivated to speak, yes. It is not the argument, however, which is that none the following statements are logically equivalent, and none of them can be simply substituted for one another:

There are many Fighter characters on DDB.
The Fighter class is the most well-liked class in 5e.
The Fighter class would be hated if anything whatsoever were changed about its design.

The first of these three statements is inarguable from the data.

Indeed, and for accuracy substitute "more Fighter characters than any other class" for "many Fighter characters".

Note however that the DDB data also lines up with data and anecdotes from every previous edition. This isn't a one-off surprise, it's a continuation of a lasting pattern established in the 0e-1e days.

The other two are not. Yet people have repeatedly treated these statements as though they are logically equivalent, and that is incorrect.

The third statement doesn't map to any argument I've seen here, though I might have missed it somewhere.

The second statement is the gray area. We don't know how many of those Fighters were created becuase players were specifically looking for a simple class/character to play, or because they love-love-loved the Fighter's mechanics, or that the party just needed a front-liner at the time, or whatever other reason.

Yes...and why is it popular, even when most folks agree the design really is bad (e.g. 3e, which literally not one person has thus far come along to dispute)?

I'll gently dispute it: my first 3e character was a Fighter, and I thought the Fighter-y bits of it worked well. My newbie mistake was trying to tack on a small bit of Wizard, which kinda butchered the character's mechanics.

Why has every single version of the Fighter been among the most widely-used classes in D&D, no matter what edition you consider? (It is possible one of the early editions breaks this pattern, I haven't actually seen data about them. But for all WotC editions it is true. Fighter is always in the top 3 and usually #1.)

If anything, the pattern was stronger in the early editions.

There could be some complex reason involving the evolution of game design or what have you, but Occam's razor tells us to keep it simple. The simple explanation is that people will choose to play Fighters regardless of quality or power. That the reason it remains one of the most widely played classes regardless of the rules it uses is that the rules it uses aren't why people choose to play it in the first place. Thus, even if they ARE popular, it isn't because of their design. It's because of their theme.

It's because they are and always have been the easiest class for a new player to jump in and play with, end of story.

 

[Lanefan]

Just so I'm absolutely, 100% clear:

They want something more simple than they like.

Because that is what "simplistic" means. Not just that it is simple; that it is undesirably simple.

I think you're getting hung up on word usage/definitions.

I've never thought of "simplistic" as meaning or implying "too simple", it's just a synonym for simple with more syllables.

So, to me the phrases "they want a simple class" and "they want a simplistic class" say exactly the same thing.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, I think it is certainly possible that the simplicity of the fighter is the appeal. But that doesn't make it true and we have no good data on that particular question, just a lot of anecdotes.

And for 5e, there is the obvious counter-example: the barbarian. Pretty much as simple as the fighter, and does the same job about as well, but about half as popular. So Lanefan's point that the concept of the fighter might just be more relatable to folks certainly is a viable alternative. It's probably a combination of different factors.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

My takeaway from this graph is, ENWorld (2019) forumers are representative of DnDBeyond (2023) players.

That's an interesting takeaway. Can you break down your logic on arriving at this conclusion? Also, please post the site where you got this image from so that others can analyse this a bit further.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I happen to like fighters, I think the mechanics work just as well as any other class. Most of the suggestions I see for improvement (e.g. making them into 4E fighters) are something that I would dislike.

There's simply no evidence that the fighter mechanics are broadly liked or disliked. Since they are, and continue to be, the most popular class the simplest explanation is that the mechanics are just fine for a lot of people.

Of course there's evidence. Its just not conclusive evidence, and can be argued the opposite. Don't confused "inconclusive" with "none".

And I disagree with your conclusion in any case; the simplest explanation is they aren't bad enough for most people to put them off. That's worlds away from "fine".

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is why I used the qualifier "I believe" before I said it.

Fair enough. But you'll note that "pretty close to exactly what people want" is a pretty strong statement for limited data. At that point to a large degree, it is your intuition (but to be fair, in regard to my original question, not "only" your intuition).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That depends entirely on how you define "univerasally".

If fighters are universally popular because they are universally available, they are still universally popular

Then we cannot, from "popular," reason that things are well-liked. Just that they are common.

Something being common does not make it well-liked. "Popular" can mean either one. Don't let a fallacy of equivocation leak in as a result.

The definition of popular is "liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people", so yest they are popular.

Okay, but what does "many" mean? If a thousand people like it, is that "popular" when millions of people now play D&D? If a million people play it without regard for its mechanics, can we reason from its "popularity" to say that therefore people absolutely adore its mechanics and changing them in even the slightest degree is super ultra mega bad never ever ever do that?

So now you claim fighters are always popular, while above you claimed we can not say that fighters are popular? While I agree with you that 5E fighters are popular, what data are you using to support this definitive claim?

Yes, because "popular" means two different things: commonly used and well-liked. I apologize for misspeaking. I should have said "commonly-used" to avoid confusion.

Fighters have been commonly used in every edition. Yet, as I have said--and again, not one person has disagreed with me--the 3e Fighter, which was extremely commonly used, is widely regarded even by 3e fans as a poorly-designed class. Hence, poor design is not enough to make people avoid the Fighter. (Edit: Okay, I hadn't seen it yet, but Lanefan has slightly disputed it.)

I believe not only is the fighter class very popular (something I think this data supports). I also believe the mechanics are very popular and I believe you are in a minority of players who don't like them.

Then prove it, or move on from the discussion, since all we have are beliefs and bare beliefs are not particularly worth discussing unless we agree on the broad strokes but disagree on the particulars. Provide the data which shows it, or move on. Don't just rely on "this is commonly used." Because, as it seems you recognize now, "this is commonly used" IS NOT the same thing as "this is deeply beloved exactly the way it is and you should not make any changes to it."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The third statement doesn't map to any argument I've seen here, though I might have missed it somewhere.

Sure it does. From this thread alone:

Yeah this is data Wizards would have poured over, and the fact remains the Fighter is popular, and that may be why its not been changed to 'mythic fighter'.

Read: Because it is popular, it should not be changed (or, at least, Scribe surmises that is what WotC thinks.)

It would be interesting if they opened up their data to public analysis, but end of the day it doesn't really matter much. Other than to say that it confirms that plenty of people choose to play fighters and rogues; those classes do not need a dramatic rewrite.

Explicit: Because it is played frequently, players like it, and thus the classes should not be rewritten.

At this point, forum users have to accept that the vast public very much enjoys the very stripped down fighter and even the no subclass features from 3-9 rogue.

Explicit: Because it is frequently played, it is enjoyed. Further implies that nothing whatsoever about this should change (e.g., no possibility of opt-in complexity.)

And I intentionally left out several quotes that were varying degrees of borderline.

The second statement is the gray area. We don't know how many of those Fighters were created becuase players were specifically looking for a simple class/character to play, or because they love-love-loved the Fighter's mechanics, or that the party just needed a front-liner at the time, or whatever other reason.

Which is precisely why I say people should not claim more than what the data supports: Fighters are commonly-used. We cannot, from this data, determine one iota of the intent behind that selection. We certainly cannot say anything, for or against, about whether it is liked.

I'll gently dispute it: my first 3e character was a Fighter, and I thought the Fighter-y bits of it worked well. My newbie mistake was trying to tack on a small bit of Wizard, which kinda butchered the character's mechanics.

Did you play past the single-digit levels?

If anything, the pattern was stronger in the early editions.

It's because they are and always have been the easiest class for a new player to jump in and play with, end of story.

And, again, you are making a causal argument from something that doesn't support that. You don't have the data to make a causal argument: "Because it is simple, it is frequently played." All we know is that it is frequently played. Hence why I separated frequency-of-play from any attachment to specific implementation. We would need a very different set (and kind) of data to make arguments like that--a data set WotC is not interested in collecting, because it would require that they hire actual consultants to do their surveys.

 

[Oofta]

Of course there's evidence. Its just not conclusive evidence, and can be argued the opposite. Don't confused "inconclusive" with "none".

And I disagree with your conclusion in any case; the simplest explanation is they aren't bad enough for most people to put them off. That's worlds away from "fine".

Where? What evidence do you have other than your personal opinion that the fighter is broadly disliked? I personally wouldn't count any poll here that has only has a dozen or two responses as evidence of any sort one way or another. As has been pointed out, they did extensive playtests for the fighter with the release of 5E and tried a few variations. The structure we have now is based on feedback from hundreds of thousands (well, an estimated 175k) people that participated in the D&D Next surveys.

The structure is decent and works well at achieving it's goal in my opinion. I'll likely play a fighter again at some point. But I'm not saying that the most popular class is poorly designed because I don't personally care for it.

 

[Oofta]

Keep in mind the existing 2014 version was extensively playtested and other completing versions were tried. It was not chose blind, and surveys were done on variations and this is the variation most liked, specifically.

I really very much like the weapon masteries stuff for the new version and WOTC says weapon variation was something also desired going back to 2014. But this basic skeleton of the Fighter, which remains fairly consisted with the 2024 current playtest version, is specifically well liked even versus prior variations.

Right. They seem to be adding just a little bit to the fighter without even a hint or UA indication of a rewrite. I mean, there are a lot of cultural influences on what people might play. There are so many archetypes of what a fantasy character can be now, from Harry Potter's wizard to many action shows having characters run around beating people up with their fists even if they don't have some of the traditional trappings of a monk.

Sure it does. From this thread alone:


Read: Because it is popular, it should not be changed (or, at least, Scribe surmises that is what WotC thinks.)


Explicit: Because it is played frequently, players like it, and thus the classes should not be rewritten.


Explicit: Because it is frequently played, it is enjoyed. Further implies that nothing whatsoever about this should change (e.g., no possibility of opt-in complexity.)

And I intentionally left out several quotes that were varying degrees of borderline.


Which is precisely why I say people should not claim more than what the data supports: Fighters are commonly-used. We cannot, from this data, determine one iota of the intent behind that selection. We certainly cannot say anything, for or against, about whether it is liked.


Did you play past the single-digit levels?


And, again, you are making a causal argument from something that doesn't support that. You don't have the data to make a causal argument: "Because it is simple, it is frequently played." All we know is that it is frequently played. Hence why I separated frequency-of-play from any attachment to specific implementation. We would need a very different set (and kind) of data to make arguments like that--a data set WotC is not interested in collecting, because it would require that they hire actual consultants to do their surveys.

So this boils down to: "I don't like the way the class is implemented so it should be completely revised and anyone who says differently is wrong."